The new version is a big improvement. If I might make a couple of suggestions though......
Obviously I didn't use the software, but you get the idea.
I assume its in HO, you never say what scale it is.
A coal mine in Wisconsin? In 1980-2000?
Rather than make a coal mine that is totally out of character, turn the coal mine into a paper mill. More cars, more spots, more switching.
Swap the coal mine and the bakery locations. Make a return loop inside the area where the bakery was and put a coal dump there, then you can run a unit coal train around the loop just like the real ones do.
I would rethink intermodal business, its not big in Wisconsin and it eats up HUGE amounts of room.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Here's my second revision, done with the correct track profiles, and a few building profiles. The powerplant and mine were in the database, the bakery and general industry are rough approximations. I decided to add a runaround to the east side, and I think I'll keep the south one for industry or for coal trains to runaround at if the siding is clear.
I also fixed the north runaround, and it's long enough to hold 30" approx. (3 or 4 cars) on the northern track, which should be plenty long given that 1) most of my cars aren't very long, and 2) the trains won't be, either. At least, anything that might have to make some changes at the north yard.
I'd use more flextrack, but honestly, I have a ton left from my last layout that I'd like to use. I know the joints give electrical problems, but I plan to run wires under the tracks to come up at intervals to help keep the current constant.
I like Falls Valley's idea of running the south runaround around the curve and having the turnout on the tangent. gives a nice long runaround without adding a lot to the size of the layout, maybe six inches or so smaller isle.
Wikious wrote:Wow, changing the library on RTS really does make a difference. I'll try to re-work my plan using the new library. I also downloaded the XTrkCad program, but it'll be a while before I can start an actual plan on it.
Start with the XtrkCAD tutorial. It is hours well spent and will save you from giving up after hours of frustration. Then you'll see what really can be done with software.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Wikious wrote: NeO6874 wrote: it *might* work, then again it might not. I think you'd do better to just use flextrack in place of the sectional curves. You'll have less joints to kink than with the sectional track, even if you decide that you can't fit anything larger than the 18" curves (which shouldn't pose a problem with your choice of locos or cars).I might end up using flextrack in some of the longer sidings, but I have quite a bit of sectional track from my last layout I'd like to use up if possible. Would you happen to know of any good online sources for using flextrack, though? Even if I don't use much now, I may later.
NeO6874 wrote: it *might* work, then again it might not. I think you'd do better to just use flextrack in place of the sectional curves. You'll have less joints to kink than with the sectional track, even if you decide that you can't fit anything larger than the 18" curves (which shouldn't pose a problem with your choice of locos or cars).
it *might* work, then again it might not. I think you'd do better to just use flextrack in place of the sectional curves. You'll have less joints to kink than with the sectional track, even if you decide that you can't fit anything larger than the 18" curves (which shouldn't pose a problem with your choice of locos or cars).
I might end up using flextrack in some of the longer sidings, but I have quite a bit of sectional track from my last layout I'd like to use up if possible. Would you happen to know of any good online sources for using flextrack, though? Even if I don't use much now, I may later.
Dude, I'd just say screw it and use flex track throughout.
Lionel collector, stuck in an N scaler's modelling space.
Wikious, have you considered an around the walls plan? This allows forn maximum mainline curves and very large curve radii. (~26"-32") It looks to be a better choice for your room size. Not to mention that you can add even more trackage with peninsulas, or even use a double deck design.
OK, now you're getting tag-teamed by the same two that tag-teamed me when I was planning my layout (all 21 revisions!). Seriously, these two, TZ and Chip, are some excellent designers. I had a lot of help from a lot of people, and they were all great, but these two hung with me the whole ride (thanks again guys!).
I wanted to try and work on your design, but right now I don't have time. I'll try and mess with it later and post the results.
First of all, unlike what everyone else has been saying technically this is not a point-to-point design. This is what is called an out-and-back. This is because trains start in the interchange go out to service the industries and then return to the interchange. In a point-to-point system trains could originate or terminate at either of the points, and often whole trains (called throughs) would go from one point to the other. There is only one such point there. Out-and-back designs are excellent because they only have one yard sucking up valueable layout space, and provide a sole operator just as much "switching" (drilling the yard) as two would.
As for the north run around issue. Look at the ladder bypass track on my son's layout below (this is the track directly below the turntable). You could do this sort of ladder bypass on the yard as you originally had it designed for the north run around.
Personally, I don't see any big deal about not being able to "turn around" a locomotive or car without using the old 0-5-0. If you are using switcher or road switcher locomotives that generally don't have a given "front and rear" like a SW, GP, and RSs, this isn't really an issue. What difference does it make which way they are headed? Even some steamers like the 0-6-0s with slope back tenders ran almost as often with the tender first as they did boiler first.
Finally to me it almost looks like this trackplan was layed out using some three rail O-gauge track templates. I am guessing it really must be Atlas HO truetrack. Is that really what the hobby store has and what you want to use? Atlas Custom Line track is often conssidered the standard for sectional track. If Truetrack is not what you want, then you need to switch the "library" in RTS to one of the standard HO libraries. There are two. One is for code 83 and the other standard code 100. Either one would give you much more flexibilty in the design as well as opening the door to flex track (that someone else already mentioned).
Finally, I guess you can pretend that it is far far away, but the choice of a coal mine does not seem to fit (geographically) with the other industries chosen. Things like a cement plant, gravel company, or refinery would be more likely to be around an intermodal yard, bakery, and power plant. Or I guess here in Denver we used to have the stock yards & still have grain elevators/mills right in the middle of all those sorts of things.
If the North Runaround does not solve the problem then I say scrap it, use the surviving track as a yard drill, flip the north yard top to bottom and run trains out of there and swap ends at the south run around for the return trip.
In fact the south run around sits on a curved with a curved switch.. that is not too good. Go ahead and STEAL a few inches *(In outside curve radius) and extend that south run around all the way around the curve on the outside until you reach the tangent.
That should give you a nice trainlength run around.
Im more satisfied with a big run around able to hold a complete train... (However many cars) than a half sized one that consumes space and does not do the job well.
A limitation of the Atlas software in addition to the fact that you can only use Atlas track is that when you use sectional, you get really awkward designs. The only person I've met who has overcome this is Phillip.
The fact is you'll be better of and spend less money and design a better layout if you dump the sectional track and run flex track where you want it to go.
First of all, get the dimensions of your buildings and find out how they address the track. Then find a way to get you track to the industry the way you need it.
BTW: The top runaround does not solve the problem
I like that you chose a point to point. It shows some chutzpah. But to pull it of you have to have a plan. The layout should be a representative of a short section of a larger railroad. How can you change things to represent a larger operation?
That plan looks pretty durn good!
What radius are those curves? 50 foot passenger cars maxed out at 18" and 60 footers around 22" for me. I run 31" myself.
I like your second plan much better, but please. Dont let me influence your final plan. Do it for you... make it what you want.
Dont get hung up on the team track issue. Some years ago I witnessed a owner operator with a flat bed pick up lumber from a centerbeam flat car and shuttle back and forth from a paved siding in town to the 84 lumber on the outskirts. It took him about 6 trips that day but that one car was empty and ready for move by the Maryland Midland the next day and it was gone on the third day.
Dont tell anyone that the 84 Lumber had it's own siding just down the track LOL. Maybe it was full up of cars being unloaded that day or something we never will know.
Now.. for the North End runaround.... bear with me carefully.
1- Eliminate the left side switch at the North End Runaround.
it will turn into a single track siding with a switch on the right side correct?
2- Move your two North Yard switches... "One track section" to the left.
That will make the north yard a little bit shorter. (See how we are using a name to describe every little item more precisely?)
3- Tie in your North run around at it's left side to the yard. I dont have the words to describe it precisely. Basically you will have to do something with the middle north yard track and additional switch orientation or whatever it takes.
Goal: a train on that north run around has the option of going into the middle yard track if he or she chooses.
You also have a oppertunity for a wye at the North End Runarounds... but let's hear from the others before we start shuffling things too much and confuse everyone.
This is what I've reworked my plan to so far. Moving the powerplant siding down, however, puts me really close to my limit to the right (have to leave space for a door there). Due to space limits, I also might have to move the coal mine right up next to the rest of the layout. I'll have to put in some mountains between it and the power plant, or otherwise that would just be silly. I also figured I could share a team track with the intermodal yard- the whole area will be paved, so it's as good a place as any to park some trucks next to the tracks. (Yes, with a modern theme like mine, a team track would be almost impossible to find. I just want one.) Where could another place for my power plant be if I wind up having to move it?
Hi wikious
Make your view block back to back industries of choice then set it up carefully and you have the possibility of more shunting moves.
There was an article on view block industry in a MRR mag I forget which date, that you will find very useful.
You will also need a run around at both end of the line so that you can release the loco at the yard for shunting and also at the mine, If you can rearrange the power station siding so you can make the yard a little bigger.
Your run arounds must hold the longest train you have on both roads loco's included so that trains can pass at that location you might want to hold the empty coal train while the loaded one passes.
Sounds like you are interested in modern running have you thought about the fact the inter modal yard should have a container crane which will mean a little more space required, and another road to handle roadrailers making it quite a busy transport hub.
If that bakery doesn't do a decent pie and sauce and choc donut it could be in trouble the road crews and other rail crew will not buy there
regards John
As many have pointed out some issues already, I'll try not to duplicate too much.
First, you have quite a few "S" turns, mostly created by turnouts off of curves. These will prove to be quite problematic I believe. Also, you have no lead for your intermodal yard. As has been mentioned I believe, you only have one runaround, and it's short.
As one forumite mentioned, you also cannot turn a train without the use of the 0-5-0 switcher. Thats OK if you set up the staging properly. your design will work fine for that as long as you set the trains in staging properly.
Of all of the issues I see, the most important is the "S" turn issue. It'll kill the layout as you'll most likely have lots of derailments because of it.
The next most important is the yard lead issue. It's not imparative, but you will have a tough time operating the layout efficiently without one.
Lastly, I'd look at adding a longer runaround into the scheme.
As a last thought, have you given concideration to switching to N scale? This 10x10 area seems much better suited to it.
NeO6874 wrote:it *might* work, then again it might not. I think you'd do better to just use flextrack in place of the sectional curves. You'll have less joints to kink than with the sectional track, even if you decide that you can't fit anything larger than the 18" curves (which shouldn't pose a problem with your choice of locos or cars).
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
Thanks to everybody who's commented on this so far, I really appreciate it. I forgot to mention one or two things. First, I made this on RTS 7.0 and have no idea how to put scenery in. The red boxes were just added in paint. The other thing is that the intermodal yard will probably be offload only, the end of the line for these containers (on rail, anyway). Thank, Falls Valley RR, about the yard advice. I'll re-work another plan sometime soon.
All of my engines, current and future, are 4-axle- a GP7, F7, and hopefully sometime soon I'll have a GP38. Also, I believe the longest car I'll be running is 60' approx.
And, sadly, my turnouts are the sharp snap ones. I'm hoping to replace them, but I'll probably have to wind up using some on my layout in out of the way places.
A question, however. Would adding 3" straight sections between my radius pieces be a good idea? On RTS, adding in the short sections gives the turn a 24" radius.
You are going to be constantly running down to the south runaround and then shoving the car to the north. Up and down.
It will be nice to have a north run around. Lose the north power plant, extend the north interchange and build in a runaround with at least one engine, caboose and one car lenth. Reduce your north interchange tracks to three so you have some kind of scenery.
Im having difficulty with the Intermodal yard. It's just too short. Now, if you stuck a Mijack on it and docked a ship there (Or just a dock with water) it's a little better.
Overall I like the point to point. But after operating that for a hour or two, Im going to be tired from the walking to and from both sides of the thing.
You are doing your best with what space you have, I encourage you to view a variety of trackplans on this website availible free download with PDF reading.
Your buildings will have to be built and tested against your track on the floor of your room before you commit to building. The good news is that industries are varied and a dozen different sizes (Usually smaller) that are reasonably good fit for the space.
One consideration would be to cut industries in half and display them in Background. Extreme tight spaces you might go ahead and paste a scenic poster with a industry on it to switch with the track next to the wall.
As long as you keep to short cars and locomotives (x-6-x steamers, or 4 axle diesels will be the largest locos you can reasonably handle, 40-50' cars), the curves won't be too much of a problem (they're still really tight though). I would reccommend buying flextrack to lay 20 or 22" curves with, not only will the trans look better going through them, they'll perform better too.
Since you're talking about intermodal cars, I'm going to assume you want to model "modern" equipment (negating my steam comment from above). You won't be able to run any of the mainline 6-axle diesels unless you have absolutely flawless curves (even at 20 or 22", I think most of the new/modern equipment is 22" minimum radius -- but I model the transition era, so I could be wrong).
Your yard and runaround tracks are another limiting factor in this, the runaround track is roughly 2.5-3' long so you'll be able to fit 4-5 40' boxcars there. Same for the yard/industry tracks. This isn't a major issue if you're running 3-4 car trains, but if you were wanting to run anything longer there's just no way that you would be able to fit them anywhere.
I think the Atlas customline turnouts are #4 (or 4.5 or something like that) - they're "tight", but they will work pretty reliably for you as long as you don't go flying through them. I can't reccommend anything in place of these, as I like the altas turnouts. Now, if you're talking about Atlas Snap switches, I would reccommend that you choose the Atlas customline over tham, as the snap switches are even tighter than the customlines, and will possibly cause problems.
The biggest problem you may (or may not) run into is your industries being bigger than you initially thought/planned for. I would reccommend finding the footprint of the structures and seeing if they will fit in the space you're trying to allocate for them. The "biggest" problems will probably be the power plant and mine, as they're usually pretty large industries.
Now, personally I don't think many of these things I've pointed out to be limitations per se. I don't like mainline 6-axle diesel power. I would rather run steam or 1st/2nd generation 4-axle diesels (well, maybe not the diesels), and use the interchange track as the connection point of ths particular branchline to its parent road. There's enough switching for 1-2 crews to have something to do, maybe crew 1 is bringing the empties to the industries along the layout as crew 2 is seitching the mines and preparing to haul some coal to the power plant or something.
I see the railroad is point to point. I am no expert, but you should spend some time considering how you will operate the layout. One problem is the lack of run-around tracks at the ends. You will need a run-around or reverse loop at each end to allow you to arrive at the end with a train and have the engine "escape" to the other end of the train for the reverse trip. The run-around consists of a main track and a siding connected at both ends forming a passing siding. The passing siding needs to be long enough to hold the entire train (except maybe the engine). On my layout in HO scale, I have a run-around on one end which will hold about 6-7 cars, and a similar run-around as well as a reverse loop on the other end.
The key is to consider how you will operate the layout. You can simulate operations in your imagination, on paper, or using a program like xtrkcad before you build anything.
Jim
This is my second layout, but the first one I've designed (first one was from a book, as well as a disaster). I'm modeling a semi-fictional railroad- it's set in SE Wisconsin and is operated by Union Pacific and the Wisconsin and Southern. The industries I've chosen are an intermodal yard, a coal mine, power plant, and bakery, as well as some generic industry for an excuse to push boxcars around. (Aside from boxcars, will also have coal hoppers, a string of intermodal cars, grain hoppers, and a few tank cars).
One box is equal to one square foot. I'm limited to mainly a 10' x 10' area and had to haggle quite a bit to get permission to build the off-shoot for the coal mine. It's also going to be modular, as unfortunately the room can't have a permanant set-up in it. (The walls would be along the top and left-hand side of the image). This is HO scale, 18" radius turns (only thing the hobby shop sells) and turnouts are the standard Atlas turnouts, not sure which number that would be.
I'd really like some advice or comments about my general design so far or any newbie-ish mistakes that I might have made.